This is tricky term to explain because the very definition has a political element. Thus, the definition will vary depending on your political viewpoint. Even the dictionaries tend to give explanations rather than definitions. We shall start with a detractor from Urban dictionary:

Politically Correct: “A method of controlling and dictating public speech and thought.”

The writer is hinting at a powerful form of censorship. Some claim it is far worse than censorship. They believe it has morphed into a form of tyranny. We need to take a journey of discovery.

Cambridge Dictionary promotes it as a good term:

“Someone who is politically correct believes that language and actions that could be offensive to others, especially those relating to sex and race, should be avoided.

A politically correct word or expression is used instead of another one to avoid being offensive:

Some people think that ‘fireman’ is a sexist term, and prefer the politically correct term ‘firefighter’.”

Collins Dictionary is very ‘Politically Correct’ about Political Correctness:

“If you say that someone is politically correct, you mean that they are extremely careful not to offend or upset any group of people in society who have a disadvantage, or who have been treated differently because of their sex, race, or disability.”

The term ‘Politically Correct’ is claimed to describe behaviour that minimises offence. True to my maxim: “What they say and what they do don’t match”, the term is now used to stifle debate and thought about issues. Another of my principles is to: “Always check the opposite.”. The expression has been hijacked from those who believe in fair and equal treatment, by people who have a ‘Politically Correct’ agenda. The term does not censor offensive discussion against minorities, but rather censors honourable discussion. Psycho Fish describes it as “A method of controlling and dictating public speech and thought.” He likens it to ‘Newspeak’ in George Orwell’s 1984.

Rather than all views being equally equal, PC warriors deem one view to be ‘correct’, and thus all other views must be ‘incorrect’. Any person who dares to voice an ‘incorrect’ view is demonised by all means available. In fact, they go further — the view is not be be expressed. Not only is the thought wrong — the thought of the thought is wrong. The person with the view is guilty of thinking ‘incorrect’ thoughts. People become feared of using words or expressions that may possibly be ‘deemed’ to be ‘offensive’. ‘Politically Correct’ has created a society where persons feel that they are ‘walking on eggshells’ when discussing items. It stifles humour and debate because people self-censor in case someone deems their conversation to be ‘offensive’. Someone saying something deemed ‘offensive’ gets derided as if it were more serious than the sixty-six-million Christians killed by the Bolsheviks or the white girls being raped in Europe. The trick is to make a ‘Political Correctness’ accusation against an opponent — their views are stifled and their being is discredited allowing you to win without needing the use of any valid points. Debate can be won with no argument whatsoever. Let us look at a comment by Mark Steyn

“If you meet someone who is opposed to gay marriage — there is someone who is opposed to gay marriage. He is not someone who is opposed to you arguing in favour of gay marriage. He just wants the right to argue his corner to. The left, on the other hand, isn’t really interested in your argument against gay marriage, they’re actually now saying: ‘You do not have the right to make an argument against gay marriage’.” [I transcribed this from a video of his conversation.]

The reasoning is that any comment about gay marriage is discriminatory and thus not to be voiced. But it is even worse than this. The guilty party is hounded in a form of mob hysteria until they lose their livelihood. Here are some typical headlines:

• A law professor at the University of Pennsylvania reportedly lost her teaching role at the prestigious university after she candidly stated that black students ‘rarely’ graduate at the top of their classes or earn high grade marks. [New York Daily News] (Wax initially sparked outrage amongst students and faculty following her comments. Alumni reportedly launched a petition demanding that action be taken against the professor. [Jessica McKinney])
• UCLA professor accused of sexual harassment loses job. (note - it says ‘accused’. Piterberg disputed the findings.)
• Erika Christakis: My Halloween email led to a campus firestorm — and a troubling lesson about self-censorship.
• A University of Oregon law professor was suspended for wearing blackface at a Halloween party held at her house. [Howard Gillman and Erwin Chemerinsky. Washington Post.] (A campus investigation found that by wearing this costume at a party in her home she had engaged in ‘discriminatory harassment’.)
• The University of Illinois rescinded an offer to professor Steven Salaita for his anti-Israel tweets. (A court upheld Salaita’s First Amendment claims.)
• George Ciccariello-Maher, associate professor of politics and global studies at Drexel University, tweeted last December, “All I want for Christmas is white genocide.” there was pressure to fire him. (The university resisted.)
• A chilling study shows how hostile college students are toward free speech.
• At the University of Oregon, no more free speech for professors on subjects such as race, religion, sexual orientation.
• UC-Berkeley says ‘Free Speech Week’ is cancelled.
• How free should free speech be on campus?
• Silencing professor speech to prevent students from being offended — or from fearing discrimination by the professors
• Professors are losing their freedom of expression. [Howard Gillman and Erwin Chemerinsky. Washington Post.]

Comments include:

• The Koch Bros Robber Baron Cartel is TERRIFIED of anyone capable of critical thinking. ... Critical thinkers can see how the Koch Cartel is robbing ordinary Americans and socking away those ill-gotten gains into their offshore accounts before Middle Class Americans can recover that stolen money. ... I think that as soon as the Kochs destroy America, they are going to move out. Maybe to New Zealand.
• William Bell Probably because they’re trying to persuade people who rule the roost in the groves of academe, the great majority of whom are ‘progressive’. (Many consider the word ‘Progressive’ to be a replacement for Communism. Thus ‘Progressive’ is the opposite of ‘progressive’.)
• Cultural anthropologist The authors write as if the left and right were of equal weight in the academy, but it has long been demonstrated in study after study that ‘progressives’ outweigh conservatives by 3 to 1, 10 to 1, or 111 to 1 (anthropology departments), depending upon department and ‘discipline’. So reference to the ‘conservative rage machine’ is highly dishonest, as the left dominates ‘higher education’, where political propaganda has gone far in replacing knowledge. In the great majority of cases, it is leftist students and professors silencing speech. (It was listed as one of the ’Communist Party of America Aims’ to take over educational establishments. 17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. [In January 1963, Congressman Albert S. Herlong Junior of Florida read a list of forty-five Communist goals into the Congressional Record.])
• baldy1976 For most of the libs I know, ‘educated’ = ‘in total agreement’. I have lib pals who can’t do math, who don’t know history, who don’t know even rudimentary economics yet are ardent Marxists, flaunt their PhDs as if being narrow minded and clueless is a badge of honor. Based on what my kids encounter in University, many of their ‘educated’ profs don’t want research or independent thinking, but are expecting students to vomit back whatever they are told and anything that does not conform is subject to ridicule or worse.
• elsegundo Hey, I am all for preaching ‘Free Love’ at all University and College campuses.
• Ginnnnnyyyyy Justin Coler says he got into fake news around 2013 to highlight the extremism of the white nationalist alt-right. ‘The whole idea was to build a site that could kind of infiltrate the echo chambers of the alt-right, publish blatantly or fictional stories and then be able to publicly denounce those stories and point out the fact that they were fiction,’ (Coler apparently easily gets conservatives to take the bait but not the lefties.)
• ...outrage junkies ... and what admittedly should be labelled ‘outrage culture’.
• people who feel powerless tend to manifest power through outrage — on social media, in community gatherings and on college campuses.
• We have allowed American society to freeze into warring ideological camps.
• Ideologies are rigid.
• We are fed a steady diet of freedom, equality and justice as platitudes.
• ArcheronSG That’s great that we should allow ‘white genocide’ and anti-Semitic professors to speak, publish, and teach others their ways. We should also allow: critics of social justice to exist and speak, anti-abortion activists, pro-Communists, anti-unionists, anti-critical race theorists, etc. To claim academic freedom for Left Wing political ideas, but not extend the same academic freedom for Right Wing political ideas too would be hypocritical. If Universities should not punish professors for speaking or writing, then they should also restrain their student activists and prevent them from exercising the heckler’s veto that silences others.
• Cultural anthropologist ‘Hate’ speech is in the ears of the beholder. People disagree on what constitutes ‘hate speech.’ What is clear is that the Supreme Court regards all speech as protected, notwithstanding that someone or other thinks some speech or other is ‘hate speech.’ That is what ‘free speech means’.
• baldy1976 I am amazed that so many students embrace a philosophy that led to the deaths of over 100,000,000 in the last century, but they are never told how Marxism wiped out so many. And they are told that anyone who disagrees with them on any level for any reason is a ‘Nazi’. Yet that is considered the height of intellectualism among their profs and their leaders. So not all ideas are equal; some are very evil and are still adored by a lot of faculty.
• No one should be censored or punished for the ideas they express on college campuses.
• Offensiveness is in the mind of the beholder.
• On today’s university and college campuses, it is the right that is always shut down by left wing students more often than not encouraged by left wing professors and often violently. I have yet to hear of a single instance when a right wing group has ever tried to shut down left wing speakers.
• You’ll note that the progressive speech police predominantly use protest and civil disobedience (speech) to curtail speech.
• What about money being considered speech by SCOTUS — but not all Americans having access to the same amount of money? To me, that’s a flagrant violation of the 1st amendment, where the government has decided that certain people and organizations have MORE speech than other Americans. (Money talks and influences politics.)
• “American higher education was an entirely close-minded arena for indoctrination into accepted opinion” And what do think it is now !!??
• In one case I handled I found substantial evidence that the college used a student’s baseless complaint about alleged ‘racist remarks’ as a pretext (i) to pursue an aggressive and impermissible investigation against the professor, (ii) that was designed and executed to inflict maximum emotional and professional harm, (iii) then retaliated against her for questioning the legitimacy of the college’s investigation by ramping up its impermissible efforts to cause the professor to either resign or set the stage for her termination.
• The college’s actions amounted to the de facto imposition of a campus speech code that the college used and could use in the future to arbitrarily and capriciously punish faculty for using words a student or administrator found subjectively uncomfortable or offensive but such words are a daily reality of communication in the classroom. On top of that, such a de facto speech code was contrary to the college’s advertised practice of fostering an environment of open and free expression in teaching and learning.
• That debate (about genocide) would be shut down, as long as you weren’t advocating white genocide.
• The debate against abortion is a debate against a form of genocide.
• That is the real problem, the use of political correctness to seek revenge.
• ...the right to be free of harassment.
• Should a professor saying: “I don’t date outside my race” be a firing offense? No. It’s a personal choice. It carries no more harassment potential than saying, “I don’t date Blondes.”

Unfortunately, the range of items considered to be discriminatory is increasing. Evelyn Beatrice Hall expressed Voltaire’s thinking in this popular statement: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”

Mark Steyn: “If we don’t have free speech, there will only be an official state ideology and free people should be opposed to official state ideology regardless of whether it’s fascism, communism, or about climate change, — and transgender bathrooms. The minute it becomes the official position and the only one you’re allowed to hold ...”

John J gives his example:

“Jamal was offended by me calling him a perverted gay fairy black boy all stung out on crack. The politically correct thing to say would be that Jamal is leading an acceptable alternative lifestyle as an African-American homosexual who has the disease of drug addiction.”

Even here there is the question of whether one should use ‘African American’ or ‘Black’. I see the use of ‘Black’ very commonly at present, so I assume I should use the word ‘Black’. ‘Nigger’ is totally ‘Politically Incorrect’ even though it is used in rap songs. ‘African American’ also has a problem because ‘American’ could refer to Canadians and South Americans. But they were born in USA so that makes them Americans not African. This meme illustrates the issue:

But Political Correctness is far more censorious than John’s example. In any significant discussion about the environment, global warming, sexual harassment, immigration, racial prejudice, the ‘Politically Incorrect’ side can be silenced and portrayed as irrational or even in need of ‘psychiatric modification’. Send them to the mental boot camp to be ‘re-educated’.

Persons that argue against immigration are labelled ‘racist’. Society finishes up with groups where one group shall not be criticised whilst the other is demonized. This next meme illustrates the author’s thinking — demonized men.

Malex takes a swipe with: “After 2000 years, Jesus is still intimidating people...Nowadays it’s ‘Happy Holidays’! and not ‘Merry Christmas’.”

Don’t be a meathead. Say Merry Christmas this year.

The origin of the expression is communist in nature. ‘Free’ speech can cost you your job. Under communism, it can cost you your life.

“We call it ‘Political Correctness.’ The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious” [www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness]

It was used by the Bolshevik controlled USSR as a way of emphasising that someone was towing the ‘Communist party line’. In other words, their actions were of a nature that was approved by the party. Right and wrong and their association with the truth were of no consequence compared to the demands of being ‘Politically Correct’ as far as the party was concerned. It was an approach that Vladimir Lenin demanded of his underlings. Something could be factually incorrect but be ‘Politically Correct’ at the same time. Thus it was not ‘correct’ in the manner that we understand correctness. Under Communism, to stray from the party’s official dogma was to risk death. Truth was not part of the formula. Marxist-Leninists and Maoists placed a strong emphasis on being ‘ideologically’ correct to ensure that the Communist tyranny was complete. Revolutionary zeal was needed to upend the social order. (You can find that ‘revolutionary zeal’ being whipped up in our universities.) It was learned that control by threat of death was insufficient. It is necessary to obtain ‘cultural hegemony’. To that end it is necessary to subvert the existing cultural code. Thus promiscuity and what moral citizens would call degeneracy are encouraged. This was carried on the back of Feminism to break the family unit, get people to be more dependent on the state rather than the family, push women into the workforce, damage the religious moral system, and more.

The natural justice and common decency encouraged by the Christian faith has become damaged and people start to use the justice system for personal gain. The rigid justice system is difficult to alter, but it can be modified by ‘Political Correctness’. Under PC, the sin of ‘racism’ becomes elevated to a higher level than the rape of girls from ‘privileged’ portions within the population. In Europe, the police are reluctant to investigate or prosecute the rape of ‘privileged’ European girls by minority immigrants. They even avoid mentioning that they are Muslim. Then ‘Social Justice’ and PC gives them a light sentence or lets them off because they were underprivileged.

Jordan Peterson, had this to say when asked the question: “Is Political Correctness a force for good or bad?” His answer:

“Well, I think, at the moment it is a force for bad. I think it has corrupted the universities, perhaps beyond repair. And, I think the reason for that, fundamentally, is that the PC ideologue types think that the proper way to classify people is by their group affiliation. And there is all sorts of problems with that.”

‘Classification by group affiliation’ is a form of ‘group think’ promoted by ‘Social Justice’. It’s like thinking that all priests are bad because one got caught doing something illegal. At the current time, ‘Political Correctness’ is promoted by a small class of persons active in universities, bureaucracies, and the media. The media has learned clever tricks. They use a handful of persons on talk-shows and elsewhere that create a dialogue that gives the impression that the whole nation is talking and thinking along their lines. I notice it when traveling. In Middle-Eastern countries, I get asked do I have children? In the west, it has more to do with sex as recreation. ‘Satan’s Pulpit’, the television, is obsessed with sex as a recreation rather than procreation. ‘Sex and the City’ has a group of middle-aged women that manipulate situations for their own benefit with never a consideration for the other person. The theme is ‘sex is for fun’ and I’ll have lots if it with random strangers. In my life time, ‘Brady Bunch’ changed to ‘Sex and the City’ and ‘Bewitched’ changed to ’Two and a Half Men’. Programs like Geordie Shore and Jersey Shore were pushed upon a bewildered population. Pornography was pushed as ‘free speech’. Even though there is no speech, just females accepting penises in unnatural activity and male behaviour never previously tolerated by females. This then get used as ‘sex education’ by otherwise immature youth. Nature never wrote a book of instructions for young males so porn becomes their sexual guidebook. The goal was to destroy what we might call ‘the old ways of thinking’. Some say that the ‘left’ has the concept of egalitarianism which it pursues by upending the social order. They promoted an all-out revolt against sexual normality by promoting the ‘Sexual Revolution’ causing immense damage to millions of lives and destroying families. Walk into any newsagent and read the covers. One said: “How come other women are having better sex?” On Satan’s Pulpit last night, an interviewer pretending to be idiotic asked: “Have you had two women in your bed at the same time?” And then: “Have you had anal sex?” (Note: It is not sex. Sex makes babies. It is an inappropriate behaviour. Real women control men — in a manner where the man thinks he is in control.)

The ‘talking heads’ on Satan’s Pulpit lure the millions into subtle ‘collaboration’ with the demands of the promotors of the combined forces of ‘Political Correctness’, ‘Social Justice’, Feminism, and ‘Progressives’. Progressivism is occasionally described as an alternative to Communism and its philosophy is the reverse of progress. Progressivism is simply a fresh name for the same ideology from which Communism originated. The ‘Working Class’ is touted to own the wealth generated by their labour as well as owning the factories along with having control over the means of production. In reality, they own nothing, live on a permanent diet because shops have empty shelves, and the those that control the state control the factories and every aspect of their lives. They cease to have freedom of movement other than trudging to inefficient factories producing substandard product in unpleasant working conditions. Progressivism promotes the concept of a centralized government which takes responsibility for feeding, housing, educating, and caring for people in exchange for the large taxes which are effectively the wealth that people create by their employment.

The embracing of ‘Political Correctness’ has become anti-Western and ceases to encourage equality. Effectively, sexual, ethnic, and religious minorities have their influence elevated over the mainstream personage. Kentucky words it as: “Makes it where Christianity is offensive and wrong, but Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism are really cool.” ‘Christmas’ becomes ‘Happy Holidays’ but Ramadan is Ramadan. Christmas is pervasive in that it embodies the message: “Goodwill to all mankind.” We don’t say: “Are you Christian?” then “Merry Christmas” or “Sod off”.

Such is the power of ‘Political Correctness’ that proof is not required. If someone says they ‘felt’ oppressed, then the accused is guilty.

Inadvertently, the prejudice may be reinforced by the censorship. I was watching an Aboriginal comedian and he absolutely took the ‘piss’ out of aboriginal stereotypes by saying things that non-aboriginal people can no longer say. He was ‘breaking the ice’ between aboriginals and others. He has a fond place in my heart. He made me appreciate aboriginals more than previously by highlighting differences in aboriginal thinking and activity. He was highly ‘Politically Incorrect’ but gets away with it because he is black. ‘Political Correctness’ thus creates a greater schisms between different races, genders, religions, origins, and colours. It does the opposite of what it claims. Whilst traveling through Muslim countries, I have no trouble saying what is wrong with Islam, and they rapidly educate me on what is wrong with Christianity. The most memorable comment is: “You Christians cannot keep your families together.” such statements give me cause to write books such as this. Let us fix Christianity. It has been taken off the rails.

We can now see problems with the #MeToo movement and the false accusation of rape against males. The media conversation is conducted in a manner that suggest that you are required to believe somebody because they “said it happened”. There is an element of victimisation in #MeToo. “I said he did it so he did it” There is a secondary element in that he is lying because he denies it. The accused becomes a rapist, a harasser, and a liar all at once because he is accused with no evidence. Truth is as defined by the accuser and the accused it on the side of untruth because the accused is not the accuser. We have an ugly situation where the accused is guilty because s/he was accused.

The PC advocates succeed in banning things they don’t like. They punish and denigrate persons with opinions and thoughts that are deemed ‘incorrect’. Dissent is not tolerated. Religions had words that were disallowed. Blasphemy was tied into this notion of ‘bad words’ that you were not tolerated as they were against the ideology of the religion. PC is similar to the blasphemy rules of religion. ‘Indecency’ and ‘obscenity’ have a similar ‘bad words’ connotation and have a connotation of censorship. The word ‘nigger’ can no longer be used by white people. The controlling of speech is somehow supposed to help us to adhere to an ideology. But who decided on the ideology. I have yet to see mixed society function harmoniously. When a ‘different’ person is in the ration of 1000 to 1, there appears to be no problem. When ‘different’ group reaches around 1%, troubles can arise between the groups.

It is fine to say that all people should get on as we are all genetically similar in that we can interbreed. Birds do not interbreed. They are too genetically different to interbreed. Humans can interbreed, and they often intermix freely but often they don’t. they tend to separate and develop their own cultural rules which include marriage restrictions.

These ideologies can take hold in what appear to be opposing political parties. You may already have noticed that both political parties support the debt banking system without question. Both political parties support the wars advertised by the major news generators. They tend to get their ‘reports’ from privately owned and operated ‘think tanks’. They are incredibly well funded ‘invite-only’ organisations that are populated by the wealthy corporate controllers. They generate a ‘report’ with a heavy slant which is then put around the world as news. ‘The Council on Foreign Relations’ comes to mind. The talking heads on news media ‘discuss’ the issue as if it were gospel truth and suddenly the army is shooting people in a country that no resident can find on a map. Thus, one does not need to change the thinking of the whole country, one just has to give the impression that the whole country is thinking in this way.

Newspeak from George Orwell’s 1984 is the language of his Oceania, his fictional totalitarian state. In the tyrannical state of Oceania, the ruling political Party created the language to meet the ideological requirements of their brand of ‘Socialism’. Newspeak is a clever word as it can be said as ‘new speak’ as in a new way of speaking or it can be read as ‘news speak’ as in what the ‘news’ is telling us through the teleprompter. The aim of Newspeak was to reduce the meaning of language by reducing the number of words. Oceania chose the words the populace were allowed to use, with the aim of moving thought in a direction that suited their needs.

George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four was a revelation to the world when it was published in 1949. Its significance and impact have since increased. It is essential reading. Orwell was warning us about totalitarian authority and surveillance. Newspeak was an altered form of English controlled by the state to suppress free thought and individualism. Language became tied in with psychology. Orwell demonstrated that language can subtly take control of people. Actions, moods, and minds are influenced by the altered language. Thus, The Party is able to suppress the peoples thoughts and emotions. The limited ways to describe their lives, The people’s perception of their environs is limited. Similar is occurring now by limiting the discourse on TV news. The TV with its selected talking heads tell people what is good and what is bad. It tells who is good and who is bad. It tells what is good action and what is bad.It tells how to act sexually. Headlines scream: “The secrets of total sexual confidence.” Ask yourself. How can you be sexually confident without sleeping with half the town? What does that do for civilisation?

We start to believe that shooting people in strange countries is justified. We start to believe that divorce is natural when the family has always been the essential building brick that enabled civilised life. We start to think bad food is good. We think drugs are good. If you drink coffee or beer, they have already got you. If you think you are free but you only get a few weeks holiday a year, they have got you in Golden Handcuffs.

Newspeak forced the people of Oceania to conform to thinking and bizarre ideologies imposed upon them. Individuals are constrained to operate in the manner required by the party.

Doublethink was fascinating in that it enables two contradictory beliefs to be true. This is exemplified in other Oceania slogans: “War is Peace,” “Freedom is Slavery,” and “Ignorance is Strength,”. Please make sure that you read 1984. I first read the book well before 1984. As young adults we used to joke that “1984 is coming”. In a crazy sort of voice we would say: “Big brother will be looking over us.”

Another term we use from 1984 is ‘ThoughtCrime’. The Thought Police would deal with anyone that was caught in the act of thinking thoughts or holding opinions that were deemed socially unacceptable to The Party.

Japan had it own version of the Thought Police. In 1911, a ‘Thought Police’ unit was set up called the ‘Special Higher Police’ which was tasked to deal with ‘political’ crimes. They suppressed what they considered to be subversive ideologies, including anarchism, communism, socialism, and kept a watchful eye on the foreigners. It gradually started to observe religious groups, pacifists, student activists, and other political groups. They also regulated the content of motion pictures, political meetings, and election campaigns.

It is difficult to know how much of this is done in our groups. I observed some strange activities by certain persons in the Occupy Wall Street group. They had come out of nowhere. They acted in a manner to divert the activity or to discredit the organisation. It took me a while to recognise what they were up to. I think I could also detect it in their eyes. I have met people traveling on trains that were well funded out of USA that were going along to ‘assist’ with ‘woman’s marches’. Thus we have foreign funding of protest activities in another country. These activities are potentially destabilising. One was a woman’s march in Greece. Greece was being ‘done over’ and ‘bailed out’ by the banks. I knew they would be bailed out because failure to bail them out would demonstrate the virtual nature of the loans they had been given. Nations go to banks for money when it should be the other way around. Nations have the authority to create the money of the nation by authority of their sovereignty. If the international banks allow on nation to default, others will realise the nature of the biblical usury and it will be game over for the banks. Unfortunately, this brings the nations down with them.

Japan had ‘Peace Preservation Laws’ which gave the police great leeway in the interpretation of what was ‘criminal activity’ under the requirement of ‘maintenance of order’. The police had significant powers of surveillance and arrest. The police became very brutal. They had a ‘guilty until proven innocent’ approach which you can now see occurring in the sexual accusations against males.

The Obama administration created a new approach to the way colleges and universities reacted to allegations of sexual misconduct. Under Obama, justice was unravelled when it was decided that:

“a ‘preponderance of evidence’ is enough to establish that misconduct occurred, a less rigorous evidentiary standard than the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that applies in most criminal cases.”

This was a terrible change to the way justice was administered. An allegation of sexual assault led to the ruin of many young men’s careers and reputations. Trump rectified much of the situation but the problem persists. Here are some of the words of Betsy de Vos announcing the adjustment:

“Every student accused of sexual misconduct must know that guilt is not pre-determined. ... Any school that refuses to take seriously a student who reports sexual misconduct is one that discriminates. And any school that uses a system biased toward finding a student responsible for sexual misconduct also commits discrimination. One rape is one too many. One assault is one too many... One person denied due process is one too many.”